G.R. No. L-69809 | October 16, 1986 | J. Gutierrez Jr.Facts:Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were in the living room of complainants residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which they filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against Leonardo Laconico. After they had decided on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to Laconico. That same morning, Laconico telephoned appellant, who is a lawyer, to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case because his regular lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a business trip.When complainant called up, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement.Twenty minutes later, complainant called up again to ask Laconico if he was agreeable to the conditions. Laconico answered Yes. Complainant then told Laconico to wait for instructions on where to deliver the money.Complainant called up again and instructed Laconico to give the money to his wife at the office of the then Department of Public Highways. Laconico who earlier alerted his friend Colonel Zulueta of the Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary, insisted that complainant himself should receive the money.When he received the money at the Igloo Restaurant, complainant was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.Appellant executed on the following day an affidavit stating that he heard complainant demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Laconico attached the affidavit of appellant to the complainant for robbery/extortion which he filed against complainant. Since appellant listened to the telephone conversation without complainants consent, complainant charged appellant and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act.The lower court found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200, which prompted petitioner to appeal. The IAC affirmed with modification hence the present petition for certiorari.Issue:W/N an extension telephone is covered by the term device or arrangement under Rep. Act No. 4200Held:No. The law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or thedeliberateinstallation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as tapping the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.